IRAQ: What to do now?

[moxie]

Hi, I'm asking this question in a separate general thread (as opposed to left-leaning or right-leaning) as a way to get opinions from many directions. Here goes:

Terrorist/insurgent attacks against those chosen for the new government have risen to the point where about 500 people (including Iraqi officials & U.S. troops) have been killed in the last month alone. Some people now fear that Iraq is on the verge of outright civil war.

What do you feel the U.S. should do now:
1. Increase the number of Iraq-based troops in an attempt to control the violence?
2. Declare a victory and leave?
3. Keep the troop levels and policies the same?
4. Another option (please describe)?

Thanks to all for any input.

[Lanternlight]

I wouldn't say that an immediate withdrawal is feasible, but what we are doing now isn't feasible either.

An exit strategy of some type, any type, would be a good thing. :(

[mr pru]

Agreed. Some sort of exit plan MUST be formulated-and soon! Even if we had one million troops over there, we'd never be able to stop the indiscriminate attacks.
The pursuit of oil is the driving force behind this war. The Iraqi people know this. We are unwelcome over there. The majority say their quality of life has fallen since the invasion.
Granted-Saddam was a ruthless tyrant and life couldn't have been much to begin with-but for people to say it's worse now is really saying something.
We need to get out as soon as it is feasible. Lord knows when that can be.

[JerryStopher]

Elsewhere in this unmoderated forum I said ...

There was no reason to invade Iraq. There were no Ws of MD, and the Iraqi Army was no better prepared to oppose Bradley Fighting Vehicles in 2003 than the Polish Cavalry was to face Panzers in 1939. Iraq was no more a threat to the USA than Poland was to the Third Reich.

There were no terrorists and there was no religious extremism in Saddam's Iraq, his was a secular government. A brutal dictatorship, yes, but no threat to us, and we don't invade all the other brutal dictatorships in the world - we trade with them! China, Viet Nam, trading partners of the freedom-loving USA.

It was wrong to go there. It is wrong to be there. It is fatal to remain there. There is only one thing left to do, and now is the time to do it: Declare Victory and Bring the Lads Home!

[mr pru]

I totally agree with your post JS. I'm not sure though that if we declare victory-that it will be accepted world wide. We could get our goofy child President to board an aircraft carrier and declare the mission is accomplished!!
We need to get the hell out of there. If the Iraqi people can't pick up the ball by now then it is time to roll out of there. As long as we do everything for them, what is their incentive to learn to do it themselves.
All Bu****es-ask yourselves this: Would we be over there if there was NO OIL under the ground in Iraq.
We all know the truth.

[JerryStopher]

Pru,

As I see it, it doesn't matter if the world accepts our declaration of victory. Right now, they don't accept our presence in Iraq, and in fact, most of 'em never did.

Some say we might lose face by leaving precipitouosly, but to that I say, We got face? We lost it when we invaded Iraq in the first place! And if we had any face left after that, we lost the rest at Abu Ghraib.

So what's left to lose? All we're losing now is American soldiers and Marines, and I am tired of losing them. Let's cut our losses while we can.

[mr pru]

Very well put!!
Okay-you convinced me. When it really gets down to it-why should we give a hoot in hell what happens in Iraq?
We cannot be the policeman of the world.
You are right.
Bring'em home NOW!!

[madison]

I want them home NOW. Steve left for a third tour today. I have a bad feeling this time:(

[SNY]

There is a world of difference between what I think SHOULD happen and what I think WILL happen.

SHOULD happen:

--- The US should immediately announce a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.

--- US should declare it will not seek any military bases in Iraq.

--- US should declare that it will not interfere politically and economically in the internal affairs of Iraq.

--- US should pay reparations for the incalculable damage it has caused Iraq by its aggression, both in the destruction of Iraqi lives and property.

The Iraqi resistance is caused by the US invasion and occupation. Americans themselves would also resist if the US was invaded by an aggressor nation.

WILL happen:

The oil resources and strategic location of Iraq is too important to the US for it to just leave. In fact, Iraq is of greater strategic value to the US than even Vietnam ever was, and it took 56,000 dead Americans and domestic society meltdown before it was forced to leave Vietnam.

The US is already constructing 14 PERMANENT military bases in Iraq, in order to keep an eye on the US client Iraqi government in Baghdad to make sure it does what the US wants. And what the US wants is to control the oil spigot - one of the few remaining weapons it can use to dominate its economic rivals in Europe and Asia. Henry Kissinger once said that "the control of Arab oil is too important to be left to the Arabs". Here, Kissinger reveals with breathtaking frankness the American ruling elite's true intentions in the MIddle East.


Check out the following article, which was published just days before the invasion:

www.commondreams.org/head...309-04.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0309-04.htm)

This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot.

This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, "when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.''

The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves.

"The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today.

"If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare.

Washington is betting, Klare believes, that "controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.''

These ideas aren't new.

For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House.

[mr pru]

Great job SNY!!
Does anything else need to be said?

[JerryStopher]

Water. Tigris and Euphrates valleys. Whosoever controls Iraq, controls the main sources of fresh water for the Middle East.

Reminds me of Texas. We've got water in East Texas, and West Texas wants it. Big fight every Session. Everybody thinks our most-precious resource is oil, but it's really water.

[manskater]

SNY-- Good to see you again!! great post.

I would like our military home too. They are constant targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is just too bad this inept White House did not fight the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan back in 2001 instead of lying and leading this country into an unwinnable war in Iraq which has just strengthened those who wish to do harm to the US. >:

[zins]

Bring them home!!! We never should have benn there in the first place.

[MKGrace]

Yes - PLEASE bring our soldiers home NOW!! Saddam is out of power so there's no reason to stay over there and have more soldiers killed when they don't want us over there anyway. I may be small-minded but I don't see why we need to impose Western-style democracy all over the world. If they want a demoracy, theocracy or whatever - so be it. Let the Sunnis and Shiites work it out. If they don't then the Iraq people can blame themselves instead of us.

[EigthAv]

Jerry,what victory???? You mean "peace with honour"? ..........like the peace with honour Vietnam and Cambodia endured? It's obvious to me that Team Bush went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.I'm cool with that.You love to play the Hitler card.........suppose an American President had decided to remove Hitler form power before he was able to overtake several European nations.Would it have been okay or would the antis have whined all about how "we have have no right to do this?" So remove him.Chunk him in an American prison and start a phase by phase removal of the allied troops.5 years from now we will know a lot more about the will of the Iraqi people. How much do they want a more civilized nation? How many Iraqi men are cool with Iraqi women having "equal rights"? Forget the victory part if we do a mass evacuation of allied forces right now.I'm frankly very dissapointed in the so-called international community who are so eager to jump all over the USA for any and every lil ole thang,but who still won't condemn what the terrorist/insurgents are doing to Iraq.Take the stick away! Come down on suicide bomber mentalities! Laugh at the plum foolish notion that you will go straight to Heaven if you whack yourself on out and take plenty of unwilling men,women and children out with you.You'll go straight to a place alright and it's called hell,not heaven.Adolph will be the 1st sicko I look for when I get down there and if Charly Manson isn't already there when I go,boy will he get a welcome rally! :evil I hope I don't go to hell.........just some business and issues to tend to,in case.Sort of like my private fantasy of being Couey's cellmate for just 1 night.:evil Bush is not "Next Hitler" and those of you who are quick to want to make that comparison probably need to study up on Hitler,Stalin and WWII in general.

[madison]

Ah, Mike,
Did you lose your Dad at Normandy? Did you ever have the chance to meet him or not? Have you been 'over there' to check out this massive graveyard in France? Are you a vet yourself?

Study Hitler and Stalin???? Have you?

As far as Bush resembling Hitler - well, I'll hold my cards at this point. Hitler looked pretty good to the German people in the beginning, and I think the verdict on Bush is still out; at least to many of us. I still want to believe that I have it wrong with Bush, but so far I'm not convinced.

And what's this fascination with hell? Where did that come from???

[4dogknight]

Bush is not "Next Hitler" and those of you who are quick to want to make that comparison probably need to study up on Hitler, Stalin and WWII in general.

Gee Mike I didn't read any comparisons between Bush and Hitler within the posts in this thread. I did see a comparison of the Polish Calvary to Panzers, the threat of Poland to the Third Reich and the Iraqi Army to Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Then you brought up Adolph, mentioning just where you’d look for him and Charles Manson.

And President Roosevelt wanted to aid Europe after “you know who” invaded Poland and started rolling over Belgium and into France but the antis, led by Charles Lindbergh, got that shot down. However the Duke of Windsor thought that ‘you know who” was a ‘fine fellow’ too. So I guess there is no accounting for taste.

As far as declaring victory – didn’t Bush do that already? After all we went in looking for WMD and to topple Saddam Hussein. I don’t remember imposing Western style democracy as a requirement, just an open vote for the people. Well call me naive but isn’t all that accomplished?

We should let the Iraqi people decide their own destiny. If the decision is to favor one side or another, then so be it. This not a country of primitive peoples, in some arenas it is said that this is the birthplace of humanity and the location of the Garden of Eden. And Jerry is correct when he talks about the water issue; if the global environmental issues are not addressed, Iraq could wind up with something more important than oil – water.

Back to topic:
I agree with SNY:
SHOULD happen:

--- The US should immediately announce a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.

--- US should declare it will not seek any military bases in Iraq.

--- US should declare that it will not interfere politically and economically in the internal affairs of Iraq.

--- US should pay reparations for the incalculable damage it has caused Iraq by its aggression, both in the destruction of Iraqi lives and property.

The Iraqi resistance is caused by the US invasion and occupation. Americans themselves would also resist if the US was invaded by an aggressor nation.

4dk – Of course I could be wrong!

[madison]

"WHEN"
I'll say it if nobody else will.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq" target="_new">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq</a>

[4dogknight]

Could this be the start of something big?

House Kills First Vote on Iraq Withdrawal (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jeserich.php?articleid=6094)

The House of Representatives voted down a measure, by a 128 to 300 vote, that called on President Bush to devise a plan for a withdrawal from Iraq. It came in the form of an amendment to the $491 billion budget for the Pentagon that was passed on Wednesday night.

But the withdrawal amendment marks the first time that Congress has officially voted and debated legislation that deals with a withdrawal.

"No, it won't pass today, but it will give us a chance to talk about it," said Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the amendment. "It's an opportunity for members of Congress who are frustrated that our troops are being killed for a war that wasn't necessary in the first place and that there is no plan in sight to bring them home."

Despite the overwhelming defeat, about two-thirds of Democrats voted for it and so did five Republicans – a dramatic shift from just a few months ago, when talk of a potential withdrawal was taboo for even the most progressive lawmakers.

Of the five Republicans to vote for Woolsey's amendment, only one, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina, spoke in favor of it on the House floor. Jones, one of the most conservative members in Congress, led the campaign in 2003 to change French fries to freedom fries.

"We've never voted one time together in my eleven years here," said Jones, referring to Representative Woolsey. "When I voted two years ago to submit the troops, I was making my decisions on facts. Since that time, I've been very disappointed on what I've learned about the justification of going into Iraq. Afghanistan, absolutely, we should be there. We should have more troops, but we can't have more troops there when they're in Iraq."

There are no practical signs the U.S. is close to a withdrawal. The defense appropriation bill that the House just passed added an additional $45 billion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the costs of the war to over $300 billion.

The House Republican leadership allowed just 30 minutes for debate on the amendment. Still, it was lively and at times emotional.

"I rise in strong opposition to this amendment," said Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. "It's a message-sender to people like al-Sadr who are fomenting rebellion against the elected government in Iraq. It's a message sender to Zarqawi and his followers who think that the United States doesn't have the stomach to continue to oppose them. The Iraqi people would feel that the American resolve was fading away."

"What a great day this is … that Ms. Woolsey has now an amendment to develop a plan to provide for a withdrawal," said Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

"Yet, here are the members of the House of Representative who, under Article I Section 8 of this great Constitution, are the only ones who can declare war, and they're saying we don't even want to talk about a plan. … Congress can talk about this. Please, summon up your courage, that's your job."

"I don't think I have to question anybody to summon up my courage," Representative Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) responded angrily. "I was shot down in Vietnam, and you do not tell the enemy what you are going to do because you put the troops at risk. I don't want the 1,700 kids who have died in Iraq to have died for nothing."

Representative Woolsey still has a long way to go in her efforts to turn Congress against the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. Woolsey is the sponsor of another resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq that has just 33 co-sponsors. So, the 128 representatives voting for her amendment calling on the president to create a withdrawal plan, despite its defeat, could be seen as progress.

"The way to end the insurgency is to remove the troops who are viewed as occupiers," said Woolsey. "There is a group of us working on another piece of legislation that may be bipartisan. The sooner we can bring this type of legislation to the floor, the better off we'll be."

4dk - who apologizes for not posting the article when it first appeared on 5/26/05.

[JerryStopher]

Slowly, slowly the country turns toward the light ...

[madison]

Jerry,

~<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif" />~

[madison]

test

[madison]

test

[madison]

Wow, this server is so slow it reminds me of 14400 modem dial-ups!:(

At any rate, I was wondering if anyone watched Keith Olbermann last night on MSNBC? He spent a couple of minutes (yah, a couple of minutes!) talking about Iraq, and the new threat of suicide bombings.

The new suicide bombers are fathers/husbands whose families are held hostage and are threatened with death unless the father carries out a suicide bombing. Some choice.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/mad.gif

The other mode being used is to secretly attach a bomb to a new/used car before it is sold, and then to use a remote detonator to blow the car up w/o the person driving the car knowing a thing.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/mad.gif" />

Sickening<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif" />

[grammapam]

I don't see how you can declare a victory and leave. A victory over what??????? We(Bush) had no business being there. The Iraqii people don't even want us there. A victory, that is so laughable.

[JerryStopher]

Hey Grandmother Pamela -

You agree we had no bidness being there, we don't belong there, and ... in order to leave, I say we can declare victory and go home. What is your plan to get out of where we don't belong? Declare defeat and retreat?

Bush's plan, such as it was, had certain goals:

1. Put Sad-Damn out of power. Done. He's locked up.

2. Eliminate Ws of MD. Done. Well, there are none there!

3. Force "democracy" on Iraq. Done. They had an election.

So the Bushgang has accomplished its goals: Mission Accomplished. That's the "victory" to which I refer. Okay?

Grandfather Jerry

[bjb22]

Battlefield fatalities (1650) have now exceeded 1% of total deployment (160K). As the previous post indicated most objectives have been accomplished. Time to get out.

[grammapam]

First of my name is Pam not Pamela, second I say just get out now and there is no victory.

[elliebea]

... in order to leave, I say we can declare victory and go home. What is your plan to get out of where we don't belong? Declare defeat and retreat?

Jerry . . . what exactly are you saying here? I can't quite discern meaning from the sequence of statements.

It would appear, partially, that you and grammapam are making the exact same assertion but for your caveat of a declaration of magical word "victory" being made first.

Yet at the same time, your words contain the antagonistic challenge "What is your plan . . .?" I hear echoes of warmongering in those four words. Could I have been mistaking you for one who was morally opposed to this war from the outset?

Next time any of us has to call 911 to get help for a neighbor in danger, I sure hope the dispatcher doesn't demand to know 'What is your plan . . .? before sending help! (Or, for that matter, demands to hear the magic word!)

[JerryStopher]

Oh I'm sorry, Elliebea, I didn't mean to be so unclear!

The "declare victory" concept harkens back to Viet Nam protest days, that's what we used to say, "declare victory and bring the lads home." As a later post of mine attempted to explain, Bush's apparent goals have been met, so, he should call that "victory," or "mission accomplished," and be done with Iraq. That's the idea.

As for the line about "defeat and retreat," well, that didn't come off quite right. Sorry.

And, my opposition to this disastrous war: yes, I am morally opposed to it, and have been all along. I urged my then-congressman/high-school-mate to vote against it, and because he voted for it, I voted against him (by voting Libertarian: of course I didn't vote for the Republican who actually won).

Also, my apology to Pam, whom I called Pamela. Sorry.

[manskater]

www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm)
US Lied to Britain Over Use of Napalm in Iraq War

This in addition to the Downing Memo and lies upon lies about Iraq should get Bush impeached.>: He wants to talk about the atrocities of the insurgents but wants to hide what the US does i.e. Abu Ghirab prison scandal, Halliburton scandals.

Lets see how Karl Rove spins all of this. I'm sure there will be a terrorism alert soon because when this White House gets thrown on the hot seat that is a sure fire way to divert attention from the scandalous way this administration has represented the US.:x

[elliebea]

Oh, I see!

The "declare victory" concept harkens back to Viet Nam protest days, that's what we used to say, "declare victory and bring the lads home."

It's one of those emblematic references! And of course, tongue-in-cheek. And the 'goals met' routine almost a parody of sorts.

Boy, did I react while still half asleep this am! Sorry about that!

Perhaps this war needs its own memorable references for the same sentiment, such as: 'Declare Mission Accomplished Part Two! Bring 'em home!'

Now that I'm wide awake, of course I remember your stance on the war. Thanks for clarifying again though -- it sure can't be said enough.

[madison]

BUSH: pulling out of Iraq is not an option.
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush" target="_new">news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush</a>

Guess they haven't made enough money yet. Bush is doing NOTHING in the way of setting an exit strategy. Must be oil or money involved. Those are the only reasons for staying. Hey, we gave them democracy!

[JerryStopher]

Here's an article showing that even some Repugnicans can see the facts and respond to them: Friendly Fire (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20050618/ts_usnews/hitbyfriendlyfire)

[GinnySmith]

I don't know the answer to that question. However, I have been noticing articles in my newspaper for the last several days regarding the shortfall in trying to recruit people into the military.

Here is a CBS article:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...2467.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/16/opinion/main702467.shtml)

SNIPThe Army has missed its recruiting targets since February and last month unexpectedly lowered its benchmark from 8,050 to 6,700 recruits and still only reached 75 percent of that downsized goal. The National Guard and Reserve have suffered a similar 25 percent shortfall. These recruiting declines are largely why the Army has only 35,000 of the 80,000 troops needed to rotate into Iraq and elsewhere next year. SNIPThe effects have been alarming. For the first time in twenty years, the Army suspended recruiting on May 20 to hold a full day of ethics training for its recruiters. The ethical breaches include "the recruitment of a mentally ill young man in Ohio and a recruiter in Houston who threatened to arrest an applicant if he failed to join," the New York Times reported. SNIPNext year could be the toughest for recruiting since the all-volunteer Army began in 1973, Maj. Gen. Rochelle predicts. "It's comparable to having no savings account," added RAND Corp specialist Beth Asch. "They'll be living month to month." The hiring of poorly educated, unqualified troops will likely force a critical drop in the capabilities, training and readiness of the modern military, experts predict.

:\

Edited to add:

Like Zins, I just want bring the troops home and get them out of harm's way. So that said, I'm for defining an exit stategy and getting out ASAP.

[JerryStopher]

GS quoted CBS which quoted the New York Times: The effects have been alarming. For the first time in twenty years, the Army suspended recruiting on May 20 to hold a full day of ethics training for its recruiters. The ethical breaches include "the recruitment of a mentally ill young man in Ohio and a recruiter in Houston who threatened to arrest an applicant if he failed to join," the New York Times reported. Gee whiz, they've discovered that recruiters are dishonest? ROFL!!!

When I enlisted in the Air Force, knowing that recruiters lie, I insisted that the feller promise me I would go to war. He complied, promising me combat duty! So I was sent to France, while many others went to 'Nam. See? The recruiter lied!

Also, I was a disc-jockey at the time, and wanted to be a radio operator, so the recruiter told me to select "Electronics" on the form, and promised me I would be talking on aeroplane radios. Radio Operator was in the "Administrative" section, and so I became a Radio Repairman instead, which is in the "Electronics" neighborhood. Again, the recruiter had lied.

So, from experience, I say this: Recruiters Lie! That's just a fact of military life.

Another fact is that when somebody starts a war, soldiers die.

The problem is not the recruiters.

The problem with the current unjust war of unprovoked aggression and conquest against the people of Iraq is that it should never have happened. We have not done enough to find Osama, who is the real cause of 9/11, but we have wasted over 1,700 brave young lives in Iraq. We did not belong there, we do not belong there now, staying there is only making matters worse.

Our reputation was ruined by attacking a country which was no threat to us. As if that weren't bad enough, what little face we had left was blown away by the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal. Bush made a fool of himself with that "Mission Accomplished" banner. And now the Guantánamo scandal, just when we didn't think things could get any worse.

(And note: while at least one Bu****e asserts that Bush himself captured Saddam and deserves personal credit for it, I think that same person must understand that the guy in the chair of the Commander in Chief is also personally responsible for torturing prisoners and other atrocities committed under his command.)

So now, once again, here's what must be done: get the hell out of Iraq! If Bush thinks he has any face left to save, he can declare victory and bring the lads home, that would be fine with me. Just bring 'em home!

[mr pru]

Excellent Jerry, excellent.

[4dogknight]

Headline on usatoday - this afternoon:
Bush: "Look At All The Facts"
President defends Guantanamo, Iraq policies

Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-20-bush-policies_x.htm) should be a good fictional read but don't get dizzy from the spin.

4dk - Oh by the way, the sub story is titled "Senate expected to try again on Bolton vote".

[4dogknight]

As I suspected, 'daddy' was always in the background when the decision to invade Iraq was carried out.

Why George Went To War (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php)

{snip}
"The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain."

COMMENT: Read the rest of the article, it's packed with quotes and factual information. And best of all this article validates my long held opinion of why we 'went to war' and why this man doesn't need to be impeached, he needs help dealing with issues concerning his parents.

4dk

[JerryStopher]

Remember when we used to see Sad-Damn's annual birthday bash on TV? He would be alone on an open balcony, including that time with the rifle in his hand, the picture we see so often nowadays.

And the people - men and women, all in western attire, the women with uncovered hair, western-style makeup - the people would be in the square (seems like it was always at the Mother of All Battles Mosque), shooting their automatic rifles in the air. (They celebrate like that in the Middle East and some do in Texas, too. I think it's stupid.)

So: those men and women were out there in the open, and their evil, nasty, vicious, torturing, own-people-gassing, dictator was an easy target, but no one ever shot him!

Were they afraid of the consequences? If so, what happened to that fear? Nowadays, they blow themselves up to take out a few Marines, or a few Iraqis whom they consider sellouts.

So if they're so all-fired glad we invaded, blew up their infrastructure, bombed their children as they lay sleeping in their little beds, then why are they willing to die to get rid of us, but were never willing to risk anything atall to get rid of Sad-Damn?

Could it be that they were content?

[4dogknight]

Anybody remember Afghanistan? It's apparent that the soldiers in the article weren't given all the information they should have had.

Fighting a Hard, Half-Forgotten War - U.S. Forces Surprised By Taliban's Resilience In Remote Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101728.html?referrer=email&referrer=email)

{snip}
"When Spec. Nick Conlon and the other members of his infantry battalion learned they would be deployed to the Afghan province of Zabol this spring, many expected their worst enemy to be boredom. In preparation, Conlon stocked up on more than 20 DVDs, such as "Alien vs. Predator," "X-Men" and "Daredevil."

But in the three months since the battalion set up camp in this isolated, mountainous region of southeastern Afghanistan, Conlon has not had time to watch a single movie. Instead, the battalion has found itself at the center of a heated though somewhat forgotten war that is still underway 3 1/2 years after the extremist Taliban militia was ousted from power."

{snip}
"U.S. and Afghan military leaders contend that most of the battles are products of an aggressive campaign they launched this spring to force Taliban fighters from their hideouts. In Zabol, the fighters appear wary of taking on U.S. troops directly after suffering heavy casualties, but they continue to ambush U.S. patrols with gunfire and improvised explosives -- such as one that claimed the battalion's first fatality, Pfc. Steven C. Tucker, 19, of Grapevine, Tex., on May 21.

Meanwhile, the men of 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airborne Infantry, have had to drastically adjust their expectations.

"I thought the Taliban had fallen," Conlon marveled recently. "I thought this was going to be a peacekeeping mission."

COMMENT: This is a long article full of first hand information. Please read the entire piece, it is enlightening and frightening.
In my opinion, this is where we should have been since 2002, not in Iraq. It's wonderful that the Iraqi people were able to vote but it would have been better if we had concentrated on the immediate task at hand and that was to pursue the terrorists that inflicted such pain on the residents of the US.

4dk - who doesn't think she's alone in this above opinion.

[EigthAv]

Looks like a big love-in here.:smokin Okay,I'm taking requests.I will sing some war protest songs.

[4dogknight]

Oh 8A, you are so witty and clever! :rolleyes

4dk

[GinnySmith]

I'm wondering with 40 to 50 million voting Dubya back into office, where are the volunteers out of the millions who voted for Bush? If you support Bush, where are a few thousand volunteers needed now to put their support of the war into action?

Or do they support the war and want others to put their lives on the line to fight the battle? Inquiring minds want to know.

[JerryStopher]

Ginny, I've wondered the same thing. I know a young man who not only voted for Bush, but called me unpatriotic cuz I am against Bush, and against the war. So I told him I think he oughta put his life where his mouth is: join the Corps, volunteer for Iraq. End of friendship.

And he's still here, working in a cellphone kiosk at the mall.

I also told my former congressman, Nicky Lampson, that since he voted for the war, he should send his daughters to fight it. Our friendship was already over anyway.

Hilary & Stephanie are still here, and so are their husbands.

[candygirl559]

Looks like a big love-in here. Okay,I'm taking requests.I will sing some war protest songs.

Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue - Toby Keith

Kick some left-wing butt while were at it.

With this war in Iraq, liberals have shown their true colors as enemies of this country. The exact same crap they pulled in Vietnam.

We're not pulling out of Iraq anytime soon and we're going to wipe out all the insurgents (which is something that would devastate the liberals since it would make conservatives look good). We need our troops to fight more like Patton and less like pansies.

rightfielder.blogspot.com/ (http://rightfielder.blogspot.com/)

[4dogknight]

Of course the people dont want war...that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-- Hermann Goering

Sound familiar?

4dk

[candygirl559]

And liberals don't denounce conservatives whenever we don't vote for any big nanny state program? Or how about when liberals denounce those who favor the FMA as homophobes?

Cry me a river all you want, it's not going to change the fact that liberals hate this country and they want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[JerryStopher]

Cgirl559 said, viciously, the fact that liberals hate this country and they want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan I am a liberal. I am a War Orphan and a Veteran, and I am the father of a Veteran. I love America, I have served her honorably, my father died for her, my son served her honorably, and I do not appreciate your vicious attack on my patriotism.

I demand that you retract that vicious lie. Now.

[candygirl559]

I am a liberal. I am a War Orphan and a Veteran, and I am the father of a Veteran. I love America, I have served her honorably, my father died for her, my son served her honorably, and I do not appreciate your vicious attack on my patriotism.

I demand that you retract that vicious lie. Now.

It's not a lie that liberals want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's nothing for me to apologize for.

It's also funny that you claim to love this country while opposing the views that this country was founded on such as freedom of speech, right to bare arms, private property rights, etc.

[candygirl559]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html)

I still have no respect for Kofi Annan and I'd like to see the US completely withdraw from the UN.

[Emerald2000]

"It's not a lie that liberals want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's nothing for me to apologize for."

Guess what? I'm a liberal, and I can tell you for a fact that I certainly don't want us to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So I guess that does make you a liar.

And personally, it's a little offensive that you think anyone who doesn't support the war is guilty of treason.

[JerryStopher]

Ann Coulter in Disguise said ... It's not a lie that liberals want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's nothing for me to apologize for.

It's also funny that you claim to love this country while opposing the views that this country was founded on such as freedom of speech, right to bare arms, private property rights, etc.

First of all, it's right to bear arms. One bears arms, that is to say, carries a weapon, when fighting in a military situation. That's "to bear arms." But you said "bare" so I reckon you mean to claim that this country was founded on the right to go sleeveless.

As for your other stuff, you are claiming that I am against the very things that I am for - including, by the way, the Second Amendment. James Madison explained (in Federalist 46 - do you know what that is?) that the People would prevent the States from being overwhelmed by an overbearing outside influence (Federal Army, or foreign invader) because, unlike in Europe, the People would keep their own firearms, and our right to carry them into battle - for the defense of our States - was protected by the 2nd A. I absolutely agree with his purpose and I have long opposed inappropriate Federal gun-control laws: I think the States retain that right, under the 10th Amendment. Have you heard of it?

Now: you have insulted me and my family and most of our friends, and I want an apology. Until I get it and believe you mean it, I'm not going to type to you again. No point wasting my time on you.

[manskater]

Jerry -- I have a greater respect for you than those who love to spew names or try to question someone's patriotism. Let all of those who are SO for this Iraq war line up at the recruiting station considering that recruiting has dropped a great deal over the last few months. Those who start spewing the "you are anti-american" rhetoric when someone opposes this particular sorry excuse for a democratic government are just following the example of this White House. The old "you are with us or you are against us" reasoning is being used for any issue by this administration. Sorry to say that it won't work. The lies are coming out slowly but surely. Some republicans/conservatives have to try and use fear or names to detract from the truth.

Jerry you and many of us know how you and your family have contributed to this country. We are proud of you.

[mr pru]

It seems that the top US General in Iraq disagrees with Herr Cheney that the insurgents are in their "last throes."

In his testimony to Congress on 6/23 he said the insurgency's "overall strength is about the same" as it was six months ago.

Surveys this month show that only 40% of the American public still support the war.

This shows just how out of touch with reality this administation truly is. Their top commander says something like this and they continue on like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand (or somewhere else).

As of yesterday 1,728 brave American soldiers are dead. At least six more died today, including four females.

Since Georgie's assinine grandstanding on May 1, 2003 declaring that major combat operations had ceased-1,589 US soldiers have been killed, not counting today's deaths.

I guess it's a good thing there are no further major combat operations being undertaken.

[moxie]

"It's also funny that you claim to love this country while opposing the views that this country was founded on such as freedom of speech ..."

I saw nothing in Jerry's comments that suggested that he opposes freedom of speech. (BTW, that same freedom of speech also gives him the right to strongly object to your garbage & to demand an apology & retraction.)

Incidentally, along with our right of freedom of speech comes a responsibility to not slander people and to not use that freedom of speech in a way that could endanger the safety of others. Yes, we are free to say what we want without the goverment throwing us in jail for treason. But if you slander someone, you can be sued in civil court. And if your falsely shout "Fire" and someone gets hurt in a stampede, you can face charges from law enforcement for that.

"It's not a lie that liberals want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's nothing for me to apologize for."

What, exactly, are you basing this stupid statement on?
I don't know ANYONE -- liberal, conservative or moderate -- who wants us to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is it that you have the magical power to know what all liberals are thinking and what they want? Do you even talk to liberals about the war?

[EigthAv]

Jerry,I like you and all that stuff,but Candy owes you notta.You jump up and down on Bush at every opportunity,call the whole war illegal,demand a Presidential impeachment,blast him for frying human animals gone wild in Texas,but now you expect an apology because someone hurt your feelings???? If you can't take it,don't dish it brother.Yo dude,I didn't start any of the wars,didn't want them and don't know why anyone has to be killing over sillys*** like religions,ideologies and sometimes,10 dollars on pool game.We are in this mother and the quickest way out is for us all to put our weight on the issue and stop arguing over who started it. God started it,okay???? It's always been here and always will be.This ain't the garden of Eden.If you hit me in the mouth I doubt seriously you are going to stand there and wait whilst I take 2 or 3 years getting an okay from the whole world to strike back.In this instance,we hit Saddam square in the mouth.I know America isn't used to it.We usaually wait until they kick us real hard in the buttocks and then,after careful deliberation,we strike back.Jerry,you have as good as called me a total fool for voting Bush/Cheney and for defending their actions.You have the right and I've never taken it to mean you think I'm a criminal.Think on it dude,because you can get on up there sometimes and I don't really think you want Candy to do anything less.You ain't the onliest one here with close friend and family ties to war and veterans.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->About those millions of us who voted Bush/Cheney and why aren't all of us over there fighting? Yo,call your congressman and ask him to push for a bill that will allow a 52 yr olde dude to join up,get a decent check,some training and gimme an auotmatic sawed off shotgun,plenty of ammo and I'll provide my own body armour,convert my 84 model s10 into a counter-terrorism vehicle and letz rock baby! This ain't Nam.The soldiers volunteered.Nam sucked because we had unwilling warriors,known as draftees, being forced to fight whether they wanted to or not.I'll go over there and ante on up my dam self,but I want a dam paycheck and my va rights if I do.

[GinnySmith]

This ain't Nam.The soldiers volunteered.Nam sucked because we had unwilling warriors,known as draftees, being forced to fight whether they wanted to or not.I'll go over there and ante on up my dam self,but I want a dam paycheck and my va rights if I do. I lost many friends in Vietnam. My dad and his brother are World War II veterans and my other uncle, my mother's brother was in the infantry in WWII, was wounded and came home with shrapnel in his body. He is dead now and my dad & Uncle are in their 80's and both completely against what is going on in Iraq.

They had no choice about their friggin' VA rights or paycheck. Seems to me that if Iraq is such a noble and worthy cause, VA rights and a paycheck would take a back seat to everything else. Plus, I have read about guardsmen/officers in their 60s being retained for duty. Me thinks if you tried really hard, you could find a way to Iraq if you really wanted to.

I could be wrong....but....:\ I would agree that a draft is the only fair way, but the draft was never fair because people with wealth can always find the loop holes....I say, voters for Bush, put your lives on the line and sign up. Out of over 40 million voters, some have got to be in their 20s and quite fit for military duty.

[elliebea]

This bit of puffed-up braggadocio (with conditions, mind you) just had to make me howl and immediately reminisce:

Yo, call your congressman and ask him to push for a bill that will allow a 52 yr olde dude to join up,get a decent check,some training and gimme an auotmatic sawed off shotgun,plenty of ammo and I'll provide my own body armour,convert my 84 model s10 into a counter-terrorism vehicle and letz rock baby!

Woah, boy! Hold yourself back!

Anyone -- Jerry, Ginny, Motherlode, anyone of our age range (or younger) recall "Alice's Restaurant" and this part in particular?

"KID. . . see the psychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "YOU'RE OUR BOY!."qu

[elliebea]

I just tried editing the last post (nearly 10 times) to remove quote indicators that were incorrect and not placed there by me and no matter what they'd reappear. Anyone else having this problem?

Here are the full lyrics, if anyone wants to reminisce:

Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement (http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml)

[madison]

CandyGirl wrote:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Cry me a river all you want, it's not going to change the fact that liberals hate this country and they want the US to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>


Emphasis mine. Just using some of my 'political capital.'

[EigthAv]

The draft sent more problems than solutions to Vietnam.Some of you have challenged us "Bush lovers". I am letting you know I'm not afraid.I called the local Army recruitment office here in town back in 1988 when I was 35.We talked and they weren't interested.I'll be very frank about it.I needed a paying job bad enough to offer to join the U.S. Army......knowing it is just as dangerous at times as joining the MPD. I could take this attitude.............why should Alabamians fight? Didn't this start in Boston,and hit DC and New York? Did Ben Laden hit Alabama? Have I ever,in my life,offended a Moslem? According to your standard of let those who voted for the "war monger" do the fighting,only those who voted for Kennedy and/or Johnson would have gone to Nam.So why did Jerry Chavis and Lamar Jones of Montgomery volunteer? Chavis was a marine in Nam and Jones was an Army helicopter pilot in Nam.Neither of them were even olde enough to vote for Johnson because back then,the age was 21.I'm guessing they would have voted for Goldwater,maybe even Wallace.Chavis wasn't the only classmate I had back then who enlisted voluntarily knowing Nam was a likely option. They did come home alive and in one piece.Some didn't.My Uncle Gene spent time in genuine Nazi concentration camp and was lucky,in his words,to survive.My father was in the Army and scheduled for combat action in Japan,but before he got there,Truman settled the issue with Atom bombs.It's not pretty.Most military people don't want it anymore than the average sign toting war protester.Most city policemen don't really want to pull that trigger on another human being.It rages like wildfires and hurricanes.Sometimes,yes,I wanna just grab my gun and go find the stuff.Other times,I am glad to be alive and content to fight the yards,fleas and cockraoches.As I said,call them up and arrange it and I'll go on over there.You are correct,I didn't sign up,didn't take the pay,didn't start it,so don't condemn me if I refuse to finance my own way into it and risk going to jail for vigilante action.

[madison]

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AjvpdlxAdnNNglH5M6OcUg6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-" target="_new">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AjvpdlxAdnNNglH5M6OcUg6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-</a><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents. He said Iraq's security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then.<hr></blockquote><img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif" />
Why do I doubt that we won't be gone in 12 years? I thought this was a 'slam dunk'? Well, I'll agree with the 'slam' but when does the 'dunk' part come in?

Of course, I could be wrong.

[mr pru]

Won't there still be oil under the ground in Iraq in 12 years?

Won't there still be multi-BILLION dollar contracts available for Halliburton to receive via the no bid process?

Therein lies your answer whether or not we'll still be there.

[4dogknight]

Bush's Credibility Takes a Direct Hit From Friendly Fire (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bushiraq26jun26,0,1423729.story?track=tothtml)

{snip}
"For months, President Bush has struggled to maintain public support for the war in Iraq in the face of periodic setbacks on the battlefield. Now he faces a second front in the battle for public opinion: charges that the administration is not telling the truth about how the war is going.

Bush and his aides have delivered a positive, if carefully calibrated, message. The war is not yet won, they acknowledge, but steady progress is being made. "We can expect more tough fighting in the weeks and months ahead," the president said in his weekly radio address Saturday. "Yet I am confident in the outcome."

{snip}
"But last month, Vice President Dick Cheney broke from the administration's "message discipline" and declared that the insurgency was in its "last throes." The White House has been paying a price ever since.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who supported the decision to go to war in Iraq, complained that the White House was "completely disconnected from reality." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), another supporter of the war, charged that Bush had opened not just a credibility gap, but a "credibility chasm."

Even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld distanced himself from the vice president's words. "I didn't use them, and I might not use them," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. Rumsfeld said the insurgency could conceivably "go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever…. We don't know. It is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq."

{snip}
"Historian Robert Dallek, a biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson and an outspoken critic of Bush, said: "Analogies are imperfect, and I hate to press this one, but this is so much like Vietnam. It has echoes of the Vietnam experience when senators like [Arkansas Democrat J. William] Fulbright began to hammer Johnson on our aims and goals and credibility….

"It's a cumulative process. It takes time. We're not at the full-blown stage on this yet. But it's heading in that direction."

Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said the vice president thought the controversy was mostly partisan politics. "He understands that it's natural for political opponents to seize on a statement and try to make political hay of it," Schmidt said.

But other administration officials and Republican elders, who spoke anonymously because they feared retribution from the White House, said the vice president had blundered."

COMMENT: None required.

4dk - Sorry 8A but the rules on this forum preclude me from copying the entire article. You might just have to bite the bullet and get a newer PC.

[4dogknight]

Poll points to increasing doubts on war's progress, Bush's reasons (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-27-bush-poll_x.htm)

{snip}
"President Bush delivers a prime-time address Tuesday to a public that is increasingly doubtful of his justifications for going to war in Iraq and wants a timetable set for U.S. troops to come home — a step Bush has ruled out.
Just one in three Americans now say the United States and its allies are winning the war, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. That is a new low, down 9 percentage points since February. Half say neither side is winning.

Bush will try to reassure Americans and rally support in a televised speech at 8 p.m. ET from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, home of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He is marking the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to an Iraqi government. (Audio: USA TODAY's Susan Page previews Bush's speech)"

COMMENT: I won't be listening or watching, I have better things to do with my time. Lying Liars don't interest me in the least. Besides we all know what he'll be saying cause we've heard it before - several times.

4dk

[4dogknight]

Report: U.S., Britain planning troop withdrawal (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-11-troop-withdrawal_x.htm)

{snip}
"Britain and the U.S. are trying to build a new strategy to exit Iraq that could see British troops leaving the country by Christmas, a newspaper reported citing a government memo written by the defense secretary.
The Mail on Sunday reported that British Defense Secretary John Reid drafted a secret paper for Prime Minister Tony Blair outlining how most of the country's 8,500 troops could be sent home from Iraq within three months, with the rest by the end of the year.

The document also said the U.S. was looking to cut back its own troop levels to 66,000, down from the 135,000 there now.

But in a statement released by Britain Defense Ministry, Reid said the document was simply one of several period updates examining possible scenarios for the war in Iraq."

{snip}
"Reid, however, said Britain was committed to the coalition.

"We have made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed," he said in a statement. "No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken."

He added that it has always been the British government's intent to ultimately hand over the lead in fighting in Iraq to that country's own forces, when they are ready to assume the responsibility.

"We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies. This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios," Reid said. "This is prudent planning. I stress again that no decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken."

COMMENT: "Could this be end of Rico?" Sorry to be flip in light of the conditions in Iraq but I just couldn't help feeling that Blair may be distancing GB from GW and that isn't a bad thing. Of course there is room for wriggling and waffling by all the major players.

4dk

[GinnySmith]

Geeze. I remember Alice's Restaurant and was ROTFLMAO regarding the Group W bench. Funny, the use of W (Dubya) if you think about it.

I just have to shake my head at those who believe those of us who do not support the actions of our current President hate this country. Quite the contrary, I love my country. George W. Bush is not a man of the common person, but rather the champion of the wealthy, corporations, and special interests. He doesn't give a horse's patootie about anyone who doesn't have a personal income of at least $1 Million dollars annually. I believe George W. Bush has contempt for this country and everything it stands for.

[elliebea]

Geeze. I remember Alice's Restaurant and was ROTFLMAO regarding the Group W bench. Funny, the use of W (Dubya) if you think about it.

That's hilarious Ginny! I hadn't even made that particular connection! I love it.

Can't wait to point that out to those I know who still remember Alice's Restaurant in detail. Thanks!

[4dogknight]

Your post reminded me of that line from the film The American President:
How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?

4dk

[EigthAv]

Just one in three Americans now say the United States and its allies are winning the war, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. That is a new low, down 9 percentage points since February. Half say neither side is winning.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->You'd be shocked at the percentages of Americans who think the South won the Civil war,can't name the Lieutenant Governor of their home state and/or don't know who their personal congressperson is.Yes,by all means,let's force that hideous Bush to yank the troops from Iraq now.All of them.Afganistan too and whilst he's at it,bring every American military person back from wherever they are tonight and bring them to America. We are sleeping with our most dangerous enemies tonight and they are who we should be focusing on.Let the rest of the World clean up their own messes. Better still,fire the entire US Military and let the protesters defend our nation.Lets find out once and for all if the flower is mightier than the m16.

[elliebea]

Better still,fire the entire US Military and let the protesters defend our nation.Lets find out once and for all if the flower is mightier than the m16.

Hey Mike, you used what can rightly be termed an 'anachronism.' Which means that you displaced a historical reference. In this case, the mention of the 'flower' no doubt comes from the 30-year old slogan 'flower power.' Your use of it is displaced in time.

Oh by way, are you urging slavery with this statement? Getting protestors -- ie. those who are opposed to the Iraq war -- to do the fighting there, which is what I assume you meant by 'defend the nation,' would be tantamount to enforced servitude. I guess you cannot easily imagine those who are morally opposed to abortion being forced to staff the clinics, could you? Personally, I don't want any American forced to fulfill any role he/she finds morally reprehensible.

However, I disagree about your implied contentions about the efficacy of protestors defending the nation. Under a real and immediate threat, I have no doubt that those who undertake marching in the streets with passionate purpose, would be the first ones to shoulder the responsibility.

[4dogknight]

Pentagon likely to raise troop levels in Iraq in fall (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-08-08-iraqtrooplevels_x.htm)

{snip}
"Before the Pentagon begins reducing troop levels in Iraq next year it probably will increase them this fall to provide extra security for a planned October referendum and a December election, a Pentagon official said Monday.
Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noted that troop levels were raised last January during Iraq's first elections, and then returned to the current level of about 138,000 several weeks later.

"It's perfectly plausible to assume we'll do the same thing for this election," he said, while stressing that no decisions have been made.

Di Rita said he did not know how many extra troops might be needed during the referendum and election period."

{snip}
"The units that are there have been told to expect that: that it's possible that your planned rotation dates back to the U.S. will be affected by the need to keep a higher level for a longer period of time. They understand that," he said.

U.S. commanders see a likely need for extra troops this fall because the insurgents have tended to intensify their attacks as key political milestones approached. If a draft constitution is ready by Aug. 15, as intended, then a national referendum on the charter is to be held Oct. 15, followed by December elections based on the constitution.

Di Rita said the number of extra U.S. troops needed for the fall voting would depend in part on the readiness of newly trained Iraqi security forces."

COMMENT: Are any necessary at the moment? I'm sure people will post comments as the target dates approach.

4dk

[JerryStopher]

Yup. Protestors:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... the Bush ranch, to be exact ... There are people outside the ranch, demonstrating against the current war, and they inlude members of the Gold Star Families for Peace. They have been threatened with arrest if they don't leave before Thursday.

I have no idea why the two Hearst newspapers to which I subscribe are not covering this important story. To fill you in, here are some links about it:

www.antiwar.com/orig/bran...cleid=6908 (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/branham.php?articleid=6908)

www.dailykos.com/story/20...5956/25883 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/6/95956/25883)

www.iconoclast-texas.com/...news02.htm (http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/31news02.htm)

news.search.yahoo.com/new...-tab-web-t (http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=%22Gold+Star+Families+for+Peace%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&fr=FP-tab-web-t)

www.veteranstoday.com/article703.html (http://www.veteranstoday.com/article703.html)

www.veteranstoday.com/article704.html (http://www.veteranstoday.com/article704.html)

www.zazzle.com/contributo...4409466640 (http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/products/gallery/browse_results.asp?cid=238244314409466640)

www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/index.html (http://www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/index.html)

www.newdemocracyrising.com/lan.asp (http://www.newdemocracyrising.com/lan.asp)

www.meetwithcindy.org/ (http://www.meetwithcindy.org/)

www.vaiw.org/vet/modules....b0dd5ae445 (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1776&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=df79c1fe7a9e31499d6662b0dd5ae445)

www.vaiw.org/vet/modules....b0dd5ae445 (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1775&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=df79c1fe7a9e31499d6662b0dd5ae445)

www.michaelmoore.com/ (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

www.michaelmoore.com/word...hp?id=3607 (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3607)

New Jersey: www.nj.com/search/index.s...top&coll=1 (http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1123479616156930.xml?starledger?ntop&coll=1)

Australia: www.news.com.au/story/0,1...02,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16187879-1702,00.html)

Paris, France: www.lemonde.fr/web/articl...703,0.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-678703,0.html)

And here is an update I received via e-mail from Amy Branham this morning:

"I talked with Cindy very briefly earlier this morning. A Sheriff or something like that was driving up, so she had to get off the phone quick to see what was going on. A few minutes ago I called Diane Wilson, who is there with Code Pink and has been from the very beginning. She said it has been raining cats and dogs out there but seemed to be letting up. ABC showed up at 4 a.m. this morning to interview Cindy. Their truck and producer's car ended up getting stuck in the mud and a tow truck had to be called to pull them out! Diane said things are going pretty good."

[4dogknight]

Jerry I found the article below when I was researching another subject.

"Flip-flopping" Americans (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/09/sheehan_protest/index.html)

{snip}
"Cindy Sheehan, the angry 48-year-old mom from Vacaville, Calif., whose son died while serving in the Army in Iraq and who has been staging a lonely bring-the-troops-home vigil outside President Bush's ranch beneath the baking Texas sun, has clearly become a thorn in the president's vacationing side. Putting a public and empathetic face on the war's toll in America, Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed in April 2004, has posed a very simple request to Bush: Come out and talk to me about Iraq and why my son died. To date, Bush has passed on the invitation, but the minions on the far right have decided to try to knock Sheehan off her media perch, just as more military mothers and fathers opposed to the war are set to join Sheehan's protest."

{snip}
"Taking peculiar pleasure in trying to discredit the small-town mother, right-wingers have been in a tizzy over what they perceive as a flip-flop by Sheehan on Iraq. They excitedly reassure themselves that her alleged inconsistency about the war ought to disqualify her from being a legitimate war critic. Problem is, the oddly playful bloggers, busy mocking Sheehan as a "crazy," "exploited," "left-wing moonbat," aren't really staring down a lone mother who may or may not have shifted her opinion about Bush and the war since 2004.

If the Republican National Committee-fed bloggers looked up from their monitors for a few seconds, they might realize that when they're done with Sheehan they're going to have to discredit a few million other Americans -- because, as recent polls indicate, they, like Sheehan, have turned on the war and place the blame for the mess squarely on Bush's shoulders. "

{snip}
"Over the weekend conservatives at the Free Republic unearthed a June 25, 2004, article from Sheehan's hometown newspaper, the Reporter, which detailed Sheehan's visit with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle earlier that month. Portions of the article suggested Sheehan was grateful for her time with Bush, in contrast with her current complaints about him. Freepers then passed along the clip to Matt Drudge, who talked about it on his Sunday-night syndicated radio show. On Monday morning he hyped his analysis on his Web site, concluding that Sheehan "has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!"

The pull quotes from the article included, among others, "'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'"

Bloggers embraced the so-called scoop, demanding to know why Sheehan had changed her mind. "Something has happened to Ms. Sheehan to change her opinion of the President. Until she explains herself, it is very difficult to take her ranting seriously," wrote Conservative Dialysis (its motto: "Removing liberal waste from the American bloodstream"). "Remember, it may very well be that she has an excellent reason for her change in viewpoint. However, until she reveals it to the public, I don't think anyone can take her anti-war ranting seriously."

Again and again the deep thinkers on the right pretended to be stumped -- stumped! -- as to why Sheehan, over a 14-month span, would change her mind about Bush and about Iraq."

{snip}
"By Monday afternoon, the Raw Story got hold of the original Reporter article, in its entirety (which the newspaper has since reposted online), and discovered that Drudge had torn what he considered the incriminating portions of the article out of context.

Here are the portions of the June 24 newspaper clip Drudge purposefully left out: "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The article continued: "But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat [Sheehan's husband] noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election."

And this: "Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture."

So, out of respect for her son and for Bush, Sheehan, clearly uneasy about the war and Bush's handling of it in 2004, opted against a face-to-face confrontation 14 months ago. But now she's itching for one. Put in full context, Drudge's claim of a flip-flop is easily dismissed."

{snip}
"But what if Sheehan were guilty of a full 180-degree turnaround? What if, even in the wake of her son's death in 2004, Sheehan had praised Bush's leadership, only to become a critic by the summer of 2005? What would be so hard to understand about that?

Sheehan herself put it best. Speaking with Air America recently, she noted, "Why is my meeting in June of 2004 relevant? Over 1,100 more soldiers are dead since then, the Downing Street memo report [has come] out, the Senate intelligence report has come out, and the 9/11 Commission report has come out. Saddam is gone, they've had free democratic elections in Iraq, and our troops are still there."

In other words, things change, information accumulates and people react accordingly. Apparently, however, bloggers like Michelle Malkin, who took it upon herself in one of her posts to speak for Sheehan's dead son (does their arrogance know no bounds?), have convinced themselves that thinking people simply do not change their opinions about dynamic issues like war and peace, ever. No matter how strong the insurgency in Iraq grows, no matter how many coalition countries walk away from the rebuilding effort, no matter how many dates are set for Iraq's sovereignty, no matter how many Americans are killed, no matter how many billions of dollars Halliburton pockets with no-bid contracts, no matter how much evidence accumulates that the Bush administration was both dishonest about the war during the run-up and incompetent during the so-called reconstruction, Americans, let alone parents of dead service members, are not supposed to alter their views. They're not supposed to flip-flop.

Somebody forgot to tell the U.S. adult population, because just within the past few months there's been an awful lot of flip-flopping going on regarding Iraq, with more and more Americans heading for the exits. According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released Monday, 57 percent of American adults think the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism. That's up 18 percentage points in just 60 days.

Additionally, in the same new poll, 54 percent said they believe it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, while 44 percent said it was not a mistake. Those figures are reversed, in a 17-point swing, from those in June.

It seems pretty clear that until the mess in Iraq is cleaned up, more and more Americans are going to join Sheehan in opposing the war. And the ranks of alleged flip-floppers will continue to grow."

COMMENT: The quote below sums up what most folks on this board hold to be true in reference to this topic.

When a man you like switches from what he said a year ago, or 4 years ago, he is a broad-minded person who has courage enough to change his mind with changing conditions. When a man you don't like does it, he is a liar who has broken his promises."
-- Franklin P. Adams

4dk - who also thinks that if you say something long and loudly enough, there is a very large segment of the people who will embrace it as doctrine and make it their own. (And don't you just hate it when that happens?)

[EigthAv]

Ellibea,if I had meant "send the protesters to Iraq" I would have said that. Ben Laden used jets coming out of Boston to hit New York and DC. It didn't involve Montgomery.So why should I fear Ben??? He doesn't scare me as much as some of my own neighbours and kin folks.He isn't smiling in my face with a knife behind his back.People were demanding "justice". There was no obvious direction to go into.Bush hit Afghanistan.He and some of his inner circle had a thing for Hussein,so he hit him too. I think he should get in a steel cage with Saddam and take him on mano to mano.Whoever comes out alive wins.If ii's Bush,the terrorists/insurgents go home and Iraq gets to be a democracy.If it is Hussein,Iraq goes back to business as usual and John Kerry becomes USA Prez by default,but with Cheney as VP. Fair enough? <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->editing here....... I want to add that I do care about New York,Boston and DC. I was being intentionally sarcastic.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I like the steel cage match and will add some spice.Bush gets Tony Blair as his tagteam partner and Michael Moore can pair up with Hussein. A losers leave town sort of match.The losers go to live on the moon and the winners get to dictate future Iraq government policy.They also get to spend an all expenses paid week in Havana as guests of Fidel Castro.

[mr pru]

1,841 American soldiers are dead.

There is no progress in this mess.

Things are actually getting worse for our troops.

Afghanistan seems to becoming rather unstable again.

Five BILLION a month for what?

Maybe Goergie Porgie will make another joke about finding Weapons of Mass Destruction while more soldiers are blown apart.

Some may chose light-hearted responses to this quagmire-but this is reality.

Our wonderful president has sent these soldiers to their deaths for NO valid reason.

Four years have passed since 9/11. Our country won World War II in four years.

This administration has floundered about like a fish out of water for four years.

History will judge Georgie very harshly.

He will deserve it.

[Krista]

Four years have passed since 9/11. Our country won World War II in four years.

Im ready for the war to be over as well, and have our guys back, but thats a careless statement. In WW II we also dropped 2 atom bombs and lost thousands of more men in Europe as well. Not really comparable on a time scale. I don't think you'd prefer atom bombs and thousands of more dead.

But yes, I agree. Lets get the heck out of there. This is going nowhere.

[mr pru]

You're right-I don't wish for atomic or nuclear energy to be unleashed on anyone ever again.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the administration in office at the time got the job done in less time than this group of clowns.

There were no hidden agendas, no multi-billion no bid contracts for the vice president's company, no blatant lying to the American public about why we were in the war.

This group of bozos have lied to us from the very beginning.

Thousands of American families have had their lives made worse by these lies-not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi families.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Period.

Now a increasing number of Muslims have turned Iraq into a terrorist haven.

We are in far more danger of attacks now than we were before our goofy child "president" and his band of thugs got us into an unjust and immoral war.

I've said all of this before. Now we'll hear about how bad Saddam was, blah, blah, blah. Yea he was as evil as evil can be.

It's still apples and oranges. Bin laden planned and executed 9/11-Saddam didn't.

He just happened to be sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve.

[MKGrace]

You speak the truth mrpru.

[JerryStopher]

I still think the water in Iraq is more important to the region than the oil. but that's just my opinion, I reckon.

What's important to me is the fact that every time a soldier is killed - any soldier, anywhere, anytime - a family is damaged forever. That's what I hate the most about war.

[manskater]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/)
U.S. lowers expectations for IraqWhite House shedding ‘unreality’ of pre-war goals, official says


But I guess this is what Bush has been saying all along now right???:rolleyes

Pru - Bozos is a very polite term to use about these people in the White House.>:

[JerryStopher]

If they had had their heads out of wherever they were beforehand, they would've known it wasn't gonna work the way they said it would.

[manskater]

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/" target="_new">www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/</a>
Army planning for four more years in Iraq
Top general says U.S. military prepared for 'worst case'

This is probably the best case scenario. We need our troops home now.

[madison]

<a href="http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050821/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_5" target="_new">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050821/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_5</a>


The lowest ebb is the turn of the tide, my friends.

Kudos to Senator Hagel for standing up to be counted. Also Senator Russ Feingold.

[Sparks]

Hi everyone! I just wanted to remind the Left, the Right, and those inbetween to watch the CNN special tonight (Sunday) about how and why we got into this mess to begin with. I have seen clips of this special and it looks very interesting. The pre-war intellegence was indeed cooked, and General Powell wanted nothing to do with it. Poor General Powell, no wonder he resigned...

[manskater]

Motherlode you beat me to the punch. It is very interesting that Republicans like Hagel are actually becoming more vocal about the quagmire that is Iraq. I wonder if all the Iraq war supporters feel that he is being unpatriotic or unAmerican or that he does not support the American troops. After all this is their insinuation about those dems who are critical of Bush's war. It is the Bush supporter's theory that you can't support the troops and not support the Iraq war which is NOT the "war on terror".<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

Sparks -- I certainly will watch that special. Thanks for the reminder.

[madison]

Aw, manskater and sparks,
I was just about to post this:

If you have cable, CNN will air a special program re: Iraq entitled DEAD WRONG tonight at 7pm et, 6pm ct.

I saw clips of it and it looks terrific.







The lowest ebb is the turn of the tide

[manskater]

I heard that Bush is now planning several speeches on Iraq invoking 9/11. This is what this poor excuse of a president does when his approval rating goes down or things just don'tgo his way. Lets instill some fear in the American people. Frankly I think it is an insult to those who died on 9/11 and those family and friends who lost loved ones that this president and his supporters use this tragic event for political purposes. Maybe someone again needs to remind Mr Bush that Bin Laden attacked the US not Saddam oh and by the way Afghanistan has become a hotbed of insurgent activity again lately, nice job prez.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

[manskater]

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0919-01.htm" target="_new">www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0919-01.htm</a>
What has Happened to Iraq's Missing $1 Billion?
by Patrick Cockburn

What a blunder this whole mess has become.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />